Register Register

Author Topic: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)  (Read 36193 times)

ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10996
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #660 on: 14 May 2021, 19:02:15 »
Eh, if your SPG is taking counterbattery fire they're sitting in the same place too long.  Shoot-and-scoot is really the only option...ask the guys in Donbass.

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2167
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #661 on: 14 May 2021, 19:13:46 »
A 10X10 needs stabilizers for a 155mm?  ???
The stabilizer thing, in modern computer-guided systems, is entirely about the rocking of the vehicle moving the barrel off its pre-calculated shot vector after firing (i.e. not for accuracy of the shot itself). Sleeving the barrel back onto that precise vector while riding out the rocking back-and-forth requires a few seconds to a significant enough amount to impact rate-of-fire. And that in particular in relatively low-angle fire, such as defensive direct fire.

The reason why you do not see stabilizers on many modern SPH is due to shoot-and-scoot tactics at tactical employment level. If the stabilizers need 10 seconds to deploy then in the window you have in a position before redeploying your volume of fire is reduced by 25%.

The angle on the front hull makes me skeptical of counter battery fire resistance...
Front arc on Boxer is armoured against 155mm HE at 10m.

I think a small sideways incline would do that in...
The turret only weighs about 12 tons - and a good portion of that is sitting in the autoloader in the bottom.

mvp7

  • Warrant Officer
  • *
  • Posts: 409
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #662 on: 14 May 2021, 19:14:50 »
The angle on the front hull makes me skeptical of counter battery fire resistance...
Nothing is going to survive a direct hit from artillery but since modern near peer artillery war consists of shooting a fast fire mission and racing away before counter battery starts landing, you really want some kind of self propelled platform. Since things might get hairy you'll want at least some protection so minor shrapnel won't pop your tires and kill the crew. The Boxer level armor protection on the vehicle itself might actually even be a bit of an overkill but it's probably still cheaper to stick to the standard platform you are already using.

Speaking of fast shoot and scoot:


AMOS mortar system on AMV platform (used by Finnish Army) can shoot a 16 round salvo that will land simultaneously and by that time the carrier has already driven to a new position.
« Last Edit: 14 May 2021, 20:29:45 by mvp7 »

Luciora

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3470
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #663 on: 14 May 2021, 22:00:14 »
And people tell me to thin my paints, after seeing the armor on the Boxer.  :P

ANS Kamas P81

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 10996
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #664 on: 14 May 2021, 23:31:56 »
That's just camo netting, though I'm sure thick textured paint would give you the same effect.

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 23313
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #665 on: 14 May 2021, 23:32:20 »
Designed for purpose, and not a cent (or centimetre) more.

Anyone know how Iron Dome works against artillery shells?
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

chanman

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2607
  • Architect of suffering
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #666 on: 14 May 2021, 23:48:45 »
Designed for purpose, and not a cent (or centimetre) more.

Anyone know how Iron Dome works against artillery shells?

I expect it works fine - C-RAM is designed to counter rockets, artillery, and mortars - all ballistic projectiles.
It's more of an economics problem - no matter how you scale your manufacturing, guided weapons are more expensive than unguided ones.

Financial attrition is a thing - if you keep using $50,000 missiles to shoot down my $500 rockets, you'll quickly run up against budget pressures.

Same deal if we have some disputed airspace - if I have some cheap F-5s that cost $5000 an hour to fly, and you keep making intercepts with F-22s that cost $30,000 an hour to fly, all I have to do is keep trolling your F-22s up  to steadily run down your supply of spares and operational budget.

Elmoth

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2549
  • Periphery fanboy
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #667 on: 15 May 2021, 00:23:05 »
So a boxer is a modern Marder.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20073
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #668 on: 15 May 2021, 05:33:10 »
The AMOS is in production now?  Last I saw it was in development, and not having a good time of it...

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2167
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #669 on: 15 May 2021, 07:16:06 »

Finland runs 6 of the development prototypes and 36 production units procured in two batches in 2006 and 2010.

Sweden dropped AMOS in 2014 after evaluating the 2 prototypes they got in 2010 and switched over to Mjölner, procuring 4 development prototypes that were delivered in 2019.

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20073
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #670 on: 15 May 2021, 07:53:54 »
Dang... I hadn't realized it had been so long since I last looked...  :o

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2167
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #671 on: 15 May 2021, 08:28:13 »
So a boxer is a modern Marder.
Which one?

For the RCH155 In comparison to the WW2 Marder? It weighs four times as much, is three times as fast, has five times the road range, is protected far better, fires indirectly out to fifty times the range and doesn't consist of cobbled-together parts seized in occupation. About the only thing it has in common is carrying 30 rounds of ammunition.



marauder648

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 7486
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #672 on: 16 June 2021, 12:15:50 »
Seeing as this is a general ground forces thread, you folks might find this interesting

https://imgur.com/gallery/CbA4RM8

Ghost Bears: Cute and cuddly. Until you remember its a BLOODY BEAR!

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19671
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #673 on: 16 June 2021, 12:16:30 »
Yeah, saw that one a few days ago.  Good stuff.
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 23313
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #674 on: 16 June 2021, 12:22:06 »
That article was amusing, thoughtful, and very good. Thanks for posting!

But the initial photos do remind me of

Meet the gang
'cos the boys are here
the boys to entertain you ...
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2167
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #675 on: 09 July 2021, 11:26:32 »


LuWa demonstrator vehicle. Being developed as a successor for Wiesel 1 in Germany, i.e. as a mobile fire support platform transportable inside a helicopter.

And yes, it looks as if someone took two Wiesels for the Undercarriage, stuck a Fennek on top and then added a turret that they had to cut off in the middle for height concerns.

Gun is a 27mm revolver cannon.

I am Belch II

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 8360
  • It's a gator with a nuke, whats the problem.
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #676 on: 09 July 2021, 14:32:15 »


LuWa demonstrator vehicle. Being developed as a successor for Wiesel 1 in Germany, i.e. as a mobile fire support platform transportable inside a helicopter.

And yes, it looks as if someone took two Wiesels for the Undercarriage, stuck a Fennek on top and then added a turret that they had to cut off in the middle for height concerns.

Gun is a 27mm revolver cannon.


That is a pretty neat little vehicle. Lots of firepower in something that small.
Walking the fine line between sarcasm and being a smart-ass

500 is the number of Warships Now. 500 looks like it will stay for a long time.

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2167
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #677 on: 09 July 2021, 15:35:14 »
Someone on Twitter found the obvious original inspiration for the design.



That thing had some surprising features.

worktroll

  • Ombudsman
  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 23313
  • 504th "Gateway" Division
    • There are Monsters in my Sky!
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #678 on: 09 July 2021, 15:58:33 »
Two thoughts:

1) Why do the Germans go for overly intricate suspensions?
2) At last, an AFV with BattleTech-style cockpit glass!
* No, FASA wasn't big on errata - ColBosch
* The Housebook series is from the 80's and is the foundation of Btech, the 80's heart wrapped in heavy metal that beats to this day - Sigma
* To sum it up: FASAnomics: By Cthulhu, for Cthulhu - Moonsword
* Because Battletech is a conspiracy by Habsburg & Bourbon pretenders - MadCapellan
* The Hellbringer is cool, either way. It's not cool because it's bad, it's cool because it's bad with balls - Nightsky
* It was a glorious time for people who felt that we didn't have enough Marauder variants - HABeas2, re "Empires Aflame"

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2167
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #679 on: 09 July 2021, 16:23:14 »
1) Why do the Germans go for overly intricate suspensions?
You mean due to the two sets of tracks here? Company (FFG in this case for the undercarriage - at least someone experienced in the mashup...) claims it's partially for survivability, although most people consider that BS.

2) At last, an AFV with BattleTech-style cockpit glass!
Fennek has even more glass.



One of the three companies behind LuWa (ACS) designed the Enok for the Bundeswehr - basically an uparmored Wolf (Mercedes G-Wagon). About 170 of these are in service with military police as its primary user.



Third company involved in LuWa is from Slovenia and designed the turret. Designed, not built - they do not actually build turrets or have any relevant experience, they're just a CAD design company.
« Last Edit: 09 July 2021, 16:24:49 by kato »

Elmoth

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2549
  • Periphery fanboy
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #680 on: 09 July 2021, 16:24:06 »
Looks like any RPG will smash that thing, so probably it is a long range or low intensity warfare vehicle.

How came there are 4 tracks in the vehicle? Wouldn't 2 be more efficient?

Daryk

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 20073
  • The Double Deuce II/II-σ
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #681 on: 09 July 2021, 17:46:55 »
Definitely too much glass for any battlefield that includes RPGs...

glitterboy2098

  • Lieutenant Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 9584
    • The Temple Grounds - My Roleplaying and History website
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #682 on: 09 July 2021, 18:52:22 »
i highly doubt that the vehicle carries enough armor on its hull to defeat RPG's in the first place. it probably is only armored to stop rifles, MG's, and light autocannon, at best.
« Last Edit: 09 July 2021, 18:54:32 by glitterboy2098 »

kato

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2167
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #683 on: 09 July 2021, 19:18:29 »
Definitely too much glass for any battlefield that includes RPGs...
Due to spall liners and a lack of non-squishy relevant target material in the vehicle RPG damage to such vehicles tends to be minimal. Heavy machine guns are considerably more dangerous to them. Fenneks - with all that glass - have survived RPG-7 hits just fine. We've had only one incident with crew injured, and in that one the RPG's jet penetrated the side door and coincidentally brushed the legs of the guy on that side.

The reason why RPGs are dangerous to MBTs is not due to penetration, but due to the amount of volatile material such as ammunition and fuel housed inside the vehicle.

Reflection glare is an issue with the glass cockpit though - regarding signature (as in you're easier to spot, and well, at closer range you can see where the crew is for aiming). German Fenneks on deployment use a mosquito net style semi-translucent cloth cover over the glass surfaces. The Dutch also have a a metal slat cover variant for recce that basically casts the glass in a permanent shadow.

it probably is only armored to stop rifles, MG's, and light autocannon, at best.
Light to medium machine guns at most. The Wiesel isn't any different in that.

It helps to think of this kind of vehicle as basically a self-propelled field gun supporting infantry - that employs enough papersheet armor to ensure the crew isn't picked off by some random guy with an AK.

Looks like any RPG will smash that thing, so probably it is a long range or low intensity warfare vehicle.
Uh, LuWa is a high-intensity direct fire support vehicle for airborne troops engaged generally only in symmetric combat scenarios - like the Wiesel. There's also a version with Spike LR ATGM planned. Light Mountain Infantry units are planned on getting them too, although that's more because no one wants to design something like this on a Bv-206S.

For other motorized/light infantry troops that would also do lower intensity warfare or rear-echelon duty the 3-ton Wiesels currently used for fire support will be replaced by a ca 36-ton Boxer GTK with a turret combining a 30mm gun and Spike LR missiles. 12 of them per infantry battalion, to match their Boxer GTK APCs.
« Last Edit: 09 July 2021, 19:25:45 by kato »

Elmoth

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2549
  • Periphery fanboy
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #684 on: 22 July 2021, 09:30:56 »
I think this does not violate rule number 4, just showing that stupidity has no frontiers.

https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/war-thunder-fan-says-tank-is-inaccurate-leaks-classified-military-documents-to-prove-it/?fwa

Now I am gonna laugh hard if they change the statistics of the game for the Challenger.

MoneyLovinOgre4Hire

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 19671
  • Wipe your mouth!
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #685 on: 22 July 2021, 10:16:23 »
Oh yeah, I heard about that one last week.  Some people. :o
Warning: this post may contain sarcasm.

"I think I've just had another near-Rincewind experience," Death, The Color of Magic

"When in doubt, C4." Jamie Hyneman

Luciora

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 3470
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #686 on: 22 July 2021, 10:56:51 »
Apparently It wasn't the first time that person did it before.

I think this does not violate rule number 4, just showing that stupidity has no frontiers.

https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/war-thunder-fan-says-tank-is-inaccurate-leaks-classified-military-documents-to-prove-it/?fwa

Now I am gonna laugh hard if they change the statistics of the game for the Challenger.
« Last Edit: 22 July 2021, 19:40:48 by Luciora »

Colt Ward

  • Colonel
  • *
  • Posts: 22883
  • Gott Mit Uns
    • Merc Periphery Guide- Bakunin
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #687 on: 22 July 2021, 16:37:31 »
A 10X10 needs stabilizers for a 155mm?  ???

Those stabilizers look fast (hydraulics controlled by computer?) . . . and yes, even the quick deploy shoot & scoots have stabilizers (check the HIMARS) . . . partly because they are trying to use one gun to replace several.  Look at what they tested with the Crusader back in the 2000s- a 155mm that could rapid fire 8 rounds so that due to charge & angles, all 8 would impact a single target at the same time.  So if you can use a single gun on what before was a full firing platoon (or two) mission- well by golly you do not need as many guns!  think of the budget savings . . . great peacetime theory-crafting right up until you figure out . . .

#1)  Your assets can no longer disperse to cover a larger area
#2)  One gun going down (destroyed/neutralized/inop) now reduces your forces at a greater rate
#3)  Such rate of fires are unsustainable for the long term in a campaign
#4)  The idea that you will never need to fire off a heavy sustained bombardment is not tenable
Colt Ward

Beware the vengeance of a patient man.
Clan Invasion Backer #149

DOC_Agren

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2547
Re: Armored Fighting Vehicles Version M5 (it is a tradition now)
« Reply #688 on: 22 July 2021, 16:43:07 »
I think this does not violate rule number 4, just showing that stupidity has no frontiers.

https://www.pcgamer.com/uk/war-thunder-fan-says-tank-is-inaccurate-leaks-classified-military-documents-to-prove-it/?fwa

Now I am gonna laugh hard if they change the statistics of the game for the Challenger.
:facepalm: :facepalm: :facepalm:
"For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast, And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed:And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill, And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still!"